FRANCE VS USA VS JAPAN
—“Working time. In France, the legal length of the working week is 35 hours in all types of companies. The working day may not exceed 10 hours.”—
This strategy is fine if you adopt the japanese method of automation, and retain ethnocentrism. (which the USA needs to do for food). France’s unemployment on average is higher than the USA during the crash. And it takes a lot of employed people to pay for every single unemployed person’s benefits.
FRANCE VS USA VS JAPAN
—“Working time. In France, the legal length of the working week is 35 hours in all types of companies. The working day may not exceed 10 hours.”—
This strategy is fine if you adopt the japanese method of automation, and retain ethnocentrism. (which the USA needs to do for food). France’s unemployment on average is higher than the USA during the crash. And it takes a lot of employed people to pay for every single unemployed person’s benefits.
The Importants of Truckers https://t.co/HCATC5EAj1
The highest trucker income by state is max just over 50K. Although there are some that make 80K. So that’s 4-5k take home per month (at best). Now if you were a trucker and you could go to your bank, assuming you had some history there, and get ‘free’ 5k per month to STAY HOME and NOT WORK, would you do it if your only requirement was that you not deliver anything to a dozen cities – and prevent anyone else from doing so?
The highest trucker income by state is max just over 50K. Although there are some that make 80K. So that’s 4-5k take home per month (at best). Now if you were a trucker and you could go to your bank, assuming you had some history there, and get ‘free’ 5k per month to STAY HOME and NOT WORK, would you do it if your only requirement was that you not deliver anything to a dozen cities – and prevent anyone else from doing so?
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” creates a lot of people feeling extremely needy. It inverts the natural benefits of productivity, and makes individual productivity a burden. Those who are productive require less from others…while those who are unproductive require much from others. It incentivizes non-production. It incentivizes parasitism. The more productive you are the more others then have license to take removing the personal benefit of productivity, while the more unproductive you are the more you have license to take increasing the personal benefit of parasitism. If there was ever an idea ever so inverted to life, so perfectly designed to destroy! Such an exposition of the mind and thought process of a parasite.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” creates a lot of people feeling extremely needy. It inverts the natural benefits of productivity, and makes individual productivity a burden. Those who are productive require less from others…while those who are unproductive require much from others. It incentivizes non-production. It incentivizes parasitism. The more productive you are the more others then have license to take removing the personal benefit of productivity, while the more unproductive you are the more you have license to take increasing the personal benefit of parasitism. If there was ever an idea ever so inverted to life, so perfectly designed to destroy! Such an exposition of the mind and thought process of a parasite.
THE PROBLEM OF LEFT EGALITARIAN THOUGHT
—“That is the problem with the egalitarian program in a state of post-industrial revolution production. A uniform level of income distribution is unnecessary in order for everyone to have an adequate level of consumption for necessary goods. I think the naive intuition of the leftist is that any hierarchy built based on relative performance in the market is illegitimate and must be based on exploitation. This is to deny the existence of human capital, in spite of the fact that many leftists spend years at university to develop their personal human capital. (Ah, the internal contradictions of Marxism!) This dissonance, of course, leads them to propose schemes that focus on redistributivity, like tax and transfer payments, that reduce the effectiveness of the competition for luxury consumption and the efficiency-producing decision-making hierarchies that result from them. This creates malinvestment or, even worse, an insufficient level of capital production and deployment. This is a dangerous, immediate evil that rightists must combat. On this score, the white right is quite right.”—Duke Newcomb
THE PROBLEM OF LEFT EGALITARIAN THOUGHT
—“That is the problem with the egalitarian program in a state of post-industrial revolution production. A uniform level of income distribution is unnecessary in order for everyone to have an adequate level of consumption for necessary goods. I think the naive intuition of the leftist is that any hierarchy built based on relative performance in the market is illegitimate and must be based on exploitation. This is to deny the existence of human capital, in spite of the fact that many leftists spend years at university to develop their personal human capital. (Ah, the internal contradictions of Marxism!) This dissonance, of course, leads them to propose schemes that focus on redistributivity, like tax and transfer payments, that reduce the effectiveness of the competition for luxury consumption and the efficiency-producing decision-making hierarchies that result from them. This creates malinvestment or, even worse, an insufficient level of capital production and deployment. This is a dangerous, immediate evil that rightists must combat. On this score, the white right is quite right.”—Duke Newcomb
The economics of consumption has replaced morality in politics, but it is possible to restore consumption-with-tests-of-changes-in-the-state-of-capital possible under commodity money, localized capital, regional markets, and social homogeneity and abandon simple volume of consumption under conditions of paper money, social heterogeneity, world capital, and worldwide markets, thereby ending hyperconsumption, including of genetic, social, institutional, cultural and civilizational capital. In other words we lost the ability to test the changes in civilizational capital, by failing to measure them as trade moved from regional to national to civilizational to world scope – and in doing so our failure to include measurements of, and tools for measuring, human, cultural, institutional, genetic, etc capital was exposed and exploited, just as was our local tolerance for information stated with european law norm, christian values, and aristotelian reason. I keep saying this but the problem of the 20th was a failure of our institutions to produce systems of measurement and incentives to defend capital in parallel with the commercial and monetary expansion. The beauty of the western common law under which the first court finding that resolves a dispute over an innovation in means of irreciprocity, is that it responds the fastest to inventions of irreciprocity forcing us to continually innovate in means of competition under reciprocity. The problem is that our law failed to modernize particularly in two areas (1) measurement of the very capital that provides our civilizational means of competition (human , informal institutional and formal institutional capital), and (2) expanding our law to cover innovations in deception for the purpose of irreciprocity and obscuring that very capital consumption, made possible by the industrialization of false speech, and the reformation of abrahamic supernaturalism, sophism and denial, into abrahamic pseudoscience sophism and denial: marxism, boazianism, freudianism, feminism, postmodernism, and political correctness: denialism. We aren’t unique. It destroyed every empire i know of. Because what is accumulated rent seeking other than a failure to measure all capital transformation, and to create new incentives under the law to suppress newly available forms of parasitism that consume rather than produce human capital. All civilizations collapse because they have exhausted the capital available to use in the reorganization of a pareto distribution of influences, and a nash equilibrium of rewards for preserving that new system of organization, in response to scarcities, shocks, changes in trade routes, conflcit, war (Physical, Ideological, religious, economic), and variations in the environment (drought, climate, water and river changes, continuous quakes, world volcanic activity – which aside from very large asteroids is the most dangerous of all.